Dismissed

Jamila Bibi @ Jomila Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC18 May 2018Review.Pet./62/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging the dismissal of a writ seeking declaration as a citizen, the Gauhati High Court found no ground to entertain the review. The justices rejected the argument that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment invalidated a precedent used by the High Court, noting that review cannot be based on later decisions.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; final order dated 12.07.2017 remains valid and subsisting.

Jamila Bibi @ Jomila Khatun Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010010452018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet. 62/2018

¶5

1:JAMILA BIBI @ JOMILA KHATUN W/O ABDUR RAHMAN SK. D/O DANEZ ALI @ DABEZ ALI. VILL- BRAHMAPUTRA RIVER N.C. (CHAR BHASSANI), P.O. AMCO ROAD, P.S AND DISTRICT, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1

¶8

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶9

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DHUBRI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM

¶10

4:THE OFFFICER-IN-CHARGE DHUBRI POLICE STATION P.O. AND DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM.

¶11

5:THE DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER DHUBRI

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

ASSAM

¶14

6:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM GUWAHATI-SHILLONG ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005

¶15

7:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-11000

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 18-05-2018

¶22

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J)

¶23

Heard Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr A Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT).

¶24

This petition seeks review of final order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the writ Court, dismissing the writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 2006 of 2016, filed by the review petitioner, assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1, Dhubri, in FT Case No. 1438/D/2010 (Union of India –Vs- Jamila Bibi) , declaring the review petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶25

Review has been sought for on the ground that Exhibit-1 certificate of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary was rejected by this Court as having no evidentiary value on the basis of the judgment delivered in the case of Monowara Bewa –Vs- Union of India; reported in (2017) 2 GLR 632. It is contended that the said judgment has been set aside by the

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

Supreme Court in Rupjan Begum –Vs- Union of India and other connected cases decided on 05.12.2017, copy of which has been annexed to the review petition. The said certificate, i.e., Exhibit-1 was disbelieved by the Tribunal and was also not accepted by the writ Court. Exhibit-1 was a certificate issued by the Secretary of Monirchar Gaon Panchayat dated 08.07.2015, certifying that review petitioner was the daughter of Danesh Ali and Jelemon Khatun and that she got married to A Rahman Sheikh. Writ Court rejected this certificate by holding that it did not have any evidentiary value. Relevant portion of the order passed by the writ Court is extracted hereunder:-

¶28

“ 17. Be that as it may, this Ext-1 cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence for more than one reason. We have already noticed that reference against the petitioner had commenced in the year 1998. This certificate was issued 17 years after the reference was registered against the petitioner and just when the reference was nearing conclusion. Such belated issuance certainly creates doubts in our mind about the bonafides of such certificate. That apart, this Court has already held in Monowara Bewa Vs Union of India reported in (2017) 2 GLR 632 that such certificate has no legal sanctity. At the most it can be treated as a private document in which case the author of the certificate would have to testify before the Tribunal and prove the truthfulness of the contents there of. In the instant case, the author of the said certificate i.e. the Secretary of Monirchar Gaon Panchayat did not depose before the Tribunal and did not prove the truthfulness of the contents of the certificate. Therefore, this certificate has got no evidentiary value.”

¶29

The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in Rupjan Begum -VsUnion of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579. By the said decision, the order of the High Court in so far validity of the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary was concerned was set aside. However, Supreme Court clearly held that certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary merely acknowledges shifting of residence of a married woman from one village to another village. Such a certificate by itself and by no means establishes any claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate. It is no proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person is established. Supreme Court cautioned that the certificate has to be verified at 2 (two) stages. The first stage of verification relates to the authenticity of the certificate itself and second stage of verification relates to the authenticity of the contents thereof, which process is bound to be an exhaustive one during which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

certificate will have to be ascertained. In other words, such document and its contents are required to be subjected to thorough search and probe.

¶32

Therefore, it is evidently clear that a certificate can be put to use only after it is found to be genuine and the contents are properly verified. Reverting to the aforesaid finding of the writ Court, even if reliance placed on Monowara Bewa (supra) is excluded, the fact still remains that this certificate was never proved in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that this certificate was subjected to verification as indicated by the Supreme Court in Rupjan Begum (supra) . That apart, it is fundamental that on the basis of a subsequent decision of a Court review of the order is not to be entertained because that cannot be a ground for review.

¶33

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to entertain the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Jamila Bibi @ Jomila Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamila Bibi @ Jomila Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musstt. Amina Khatun Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Panu Barman @ Panesh Barman Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

X-X-X Vs in Re MD Mustafa and Anr.

Sisir Biswas @ Sisir Nomosudra Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Badal Bhowmik Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mahamad Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.